spam.el/spam-report.el: Gmane spam reporting broken in No Gnus

spam.el/spam-report.el: Gmane spam reporting broken in No Gnus

[Reiner Steib]

Hi,

spam reporting for gmane.* groups is broken in the trunk.  Here's a
minimal setup:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(setq
 spam-report-gmane-use-article-number nil
 spam-report-url-ping-function 'spam-report-url-to-file)
 gnus-parameters '(("^gmane\\."
		    (spam-process
		     (gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-report-gmane)))))
(spam-initialize)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

To reproduce:

Enter gmane.emacs.bugs, find a spam article, mark it with `S x', quit
the group with `q'.

Expected behavior (*Messages* buffer):

,----[ v5-10 branch ]
| Exiting summary buffer and applying spam rules
| Registering 1  articles with classification spam, check spam-use-gmane
| Reporting spam article 3981 to spam.gmane.org...
| Reporting spam through URL http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs/12939...
`----

Current behavior (*Messages* buffer):

,----[ No Gnus ]
| Exiting summary buffer and applying spam rules
| Registering 1 specific articles as spam using backend spam-use-move
| 1 spam messages were registered by backend spam-use-move.
`----

It's an NNTP group, so "move" makes no sense.  No report URL is put
into `spam-report-requests-file'.  The function `spam-report-gmane' is
not called at all.

I guess the problem is related to the changes WRT
`spam-summary-exit-behavior' and `spam-group-processor-p'.  But I
don't grok how it's supposed to work.

I found out, that the Gmane entry has been removed from
`spam-list-of-processors' ("The OBSOLETE `spam-list-of-processors'
list."), but re-adding it didn't help:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
--- spam.el	26 Aug 2005 14:10:04 +0200	7.72
+++ spam.el	08 Sep 2005 16:13:37 +0200	
@@ -1237,7 +1237,8 @@
 
 (defvar spam-list-of-processors
   ;; note the nil processors are not defined in gnus.el
-  '((gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-bogofilter   spam spam-use-bogofilter)
+  '((gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-report-gmane spam spam-use-gmane)
+    (gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-bogofilter   spam spam-use-bogofilter)
     (gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-bsfilter	 spam spam-use-bsfilter)
     (gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-blacklist    spam spam-use-blacklist)
     (gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-ifile        spam spam-use-ifile)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: spam.el/spam-report.el: Gmane spam reporting broken in No Gnus

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005, reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc wrote:

> spam reporting for gmane.* groups is broken in the trunk.  Here's a
> minimal setup:
> 
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> (setq
>  spam-report-gmane-use-article-number nil
>  spam-report-url-ping-function 'spam-report-url-to-file)
>  gnus-parameters '(("^gmane\\."
> 		    (spam-process
> 		     (gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-report-gmane)))))
> (spam-initialize)
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Again, sorry for the late response.

Can you try to use (spam spam-use-gmane) instead of
gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-report-gmane?

> To reproduce:
> 
> Enter gmane.emacs.bugs, find a spam article, mark it with `S x', quit
> the group with `q'.
> 
> Expected behavior (*Messages* buffer):
> 
> ,----[ v5-10 branch ]
>| Exiting summary buffer and applying spam rules
>| Registering 1 articles with classification spam, check spam-use-gmane
>| Reporting spam article 3981 to spam.gmane.org...
>| Reporting spam through URL http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs/12939...
> `----
> 
> Current behavior (*Messages* buffer):
> 
> ,----[ No Gnus ]
>| Exiting summary buffer and applying spam rules
>| Registering 1 specific articles as spam using backend spam-use-move
>| 1 spam messages were registered by backend spam-use-move.
> `----
> 
> It's an NNTP group, so "move" makes no sense.  

By default we do spam-use-move (to move spam out of the group, if
there are spam-process-destinations) and it knows that if a group is
read-only, a copy should be done instead.

> No report URL is put into `spam-report-requests-file'.  The function
> `spam-report-gmane' is not called at all.
> 
> I guess the problem is related to the changes WRT
> `spam-summary-exit-behavior' and `spam-group-processor-p'.  But I
> don't grok how it's supposed to work.
> 
> I found out, that the Gmane entry has been removed from
> `spam-list-of-processors' ("The OBSOLETE `spam-list-of-processors'
> list."), but re-adding it didn't help:
> 
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> --- spam.el	26 Aug 2005 14:10:04 +0200	7.72
> +++ spam.el	08 Sep 2005 16:13:37 +0200	
> @@ -1237,7 +1237,8 @@
>  
>  (defvar spam-list-of-processors
>    ;; note the nil processors are not defined in gnus.el
> - '((gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-bogofilter spam spam-use-bogofilter)
> +  '((gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-report-gmane spam spam-use-gmane)
> +    (gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-bogofilter   spam spam-use-bogofilter)
>      (gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-bsfilter	 spam spam-use-bsfilter)
>      (gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-blacklist    spam spam-use-blacklist)
>      (gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-ifile        spam spam-use-ifile)
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

If you can test as I showed above, that would help me determine if the
bug is in the Gmane reporting or just the backwards compatibility.

Thanks
Ted

Re: spam.el/spam-report.el: Gmane spam reporting broken in No Gnus

[Reiner Steib]

On Tue, Sep 20 2005, Ted Zlatanov wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005, reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc wrote:
[...]
> Can you try to use (spam spam-use-gmane) instead of
> gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-report-gmane?

Then it works:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(setq
 gnus-verbose 10
 spam-report-gmane-use-article-number nil
 spam-report-url-ping-function 'spam-report-url-to-file
 gnus-parameters '(("^gmane\\."
		    (spam-process
		     ((spam spam-use-gmane))))))
(spam-initialize)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

>> I found out, that the Gmane entry has been removed from
>> `spam-list-of-processors' ("The OBSOLETE `spam-list-of-processors'
>> list."), but re-adding it didn't help:
[...]
> If you can test as I showed above, that would help me determine if the
> bug is in the Gmane reporting or just the backwards compatibility.

It seems it's in the backwards compatibility.  With this patch [1],
`spam-report-url-to-file' still is not called using this settings:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(setq
 spam-report-gmane-use-article-number nil
 spam-report-url-ping-function 'spam-report-url-to-file
 gnus-parameters '(("^gmane\\."
		    (spam-process
		     (gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-report-gmane)))))
(spam-initialize)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

I'm a little confused about the obsolescence: In [v5-10]/lisp/spam.el
`spam-list-of-processors' does not seem to be obsolete (CMIIW,
please).  But in the manual, there is:

,----[ [v5-10]/texi/gnus.texi ]
| @emph{WARNING}
| 
| Instead of the obsolete
| @code{gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-report-gmane}, it is recommended
| that you use @code{'(spam spam-use-gmane)}.  Everything will work the
| same way, we promise.
`----

While at it: In the v5-10 branch, there's the following comment:

,----[ [v5-10]/lisp/spam.el ]
|     ;; note that spam-use-gmane is not a legitimate check
|     (spam-use-gmane      nil
| 			 spam-report-gmane-register-routine
| 			 ;; does Gmane support unregistration?
| 			 nil
| 			 nil)
`----

Gmane supports unregistration: You can reverse the report
  http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.foo.bar:1234 with
http://unspam.gmane.org/gmane.foo.bar:1234

Bye, Reiner.

[1]
,----[ <f1> v spam-list-of-processors RET ]
| spam-list-of-processors is a variable defined in `spam'.
| Its value is shown below.
| 
| [...]
| 
| Value:
| ((gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-report-gmane spam spam-use-gmane)
|  (gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-bogofilter spam spam-use-bogofilter)
| [...]
|  (gnus-group-ham-exit-processor-spamoracle ham spam-use-spamoracle))
`----
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: spam.el/spam-report.el: Gmane spam reporting broken in No Gnus

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc wrote:

On Tue, Sep 20 2005, Ted Zlatanov wrote: > On Thu, 08 Sep 2005, reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc wrote:
> [...]
>> Can you try to use (spam spam-use-gmane) instead of
>> gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-report-gmane?
> 
> Then it works:

Great.  I'm debating whether I should complete remove the old-style
gnus-group-*-exit-processor-* variables.  I say yes.  If I do that, I
won't have to fix this bug :)

> I'm a little confused about the obsolescence: In [v5-10]/lisp/spam.el
> `spam-list-of-processors' does not seem to be obsolete (CMIIW,
> please).  

Well, the variable's docstring has as the first line:

  "The OBSOLETE `spam-list-of-processors' list.

Should I mark it obsolete in some other way?  I recall Emacs Lisp has
some properties for that...

> While at it: In the v5-10 branch, there's the following comment:
> 
> ,----[ [v5-10]/lisp/spam.el ]
> |     ;; note that spam-use-gmane is not a legitimate check
> |     (spam-use-gmane      nil
> | 			 spam-report-gmane-register-routine
> | 			 ;; does Gmane support unregistration?
> | 			 nil
> | 			 nil)
> `----
> 
> Gmane supports unregistration: You can reverse the report
>   http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.foo.bar:1234 with
> http://unspam.gmane.org/gmane.foo.bar:1234

Thanks, I didn't know that.  I just added the support to spam.el and
spam-report.el.  I assume that registering as spam is the same as
unregistering as ham, and vice versa; if that's not the case let me
know and I'll correct the backend registration.  Please test the
reporting, if you have a chance.

Thanks
Ted

Re: spam.el/spam-report.el: Gmane spam reporting broken in No Gnus

[Reiner Steib]

On Wed, Sep 21 2005, Ted Zlatanov wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc wrote:
[...]
> Great.  I'm debating whether I should complete remove the old-style
> gnus-group-*-exit-processor-* variables.  I say yes.  If I do that, I
> won't have to fix this bug :)

Which released version do have the old-style variables?  The whole
5.10.x series upto 5.10.6, I think?  And v5-10 doesn't have the new
style?

IMHO, Step 1 should be to update (info "(gnus)Spam ELisp Package
Configuration Examples") (in No Gnus) to the new syntax.

[ FYI: My settings described in "Using `spam.el' on an IMAP server
with a statistical filter on the server" still work correctly
(AFAICS); both with v5-10 (Gnus 5.11) and trunk (No Gnus). ]

Step 2: I'd suggest to change the manual as follows.  Don't describe
the obsolete stuff *first* and the say it's obsolete:

,----[ (info "(gnus)Blacklists and Whitelists") ]
|  -- Variable: gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-blacklist
|      Add this symbol to a group's `spam-process' parameter by
|      customizing the group parameters or the
|      `gnus-spam-process-newsgroups' variable.  When this symbol is
|      added to a group's `spam-process' parameter, the senders of
|      spam-marked articles will be added to the blacklist.
| 
|      _WARNING_
| 
|      Instead of the obsolete
|      `gnus-group-spam-exit-processor-blacklist', it is recommended that
|      you use `(spam spam-use-blacklist)'.  Everything will work the
|      same way, we promise.
`----

*First* describe the new recommended syntax.  I don't know if it makes
more sense to create a section "old-style vs. new-style" or to mention
the old-style after each "Variable:".

Step 3: `G c' probably should not offer the obsolete form.

[ Step 4: Remove the backward compatibility. ]

>> I'm a little confused about the obsolescence: In [v5-10]/lisp/spam.el
>> `spam-list-of-processors' does not seem to be obsolete (CMIIW,
>> please).  
>
> Well, the variable's docstring has as the first line:
>
>   "The OBSOLETE `spam-list-of-processors' list.

But *not* in the v5-10 branch: v5-10/texi/gnus.el says that it's
obsolete, but v5-10/lisp/spam*.el doesn't!

,----
| -*- mode: grep; default-directory: ".../v5-10/lisp/" -*-
| Grep started at Wed Sep 21 18:04:46
| 
| grep -nH -ie obsolete spam*.el
| 
| Grep finished with no matches found at Wed Sep 21 18:04:46
`----


> Should I mark it obsolete in some other way?  I recall Emacs Lisp has
> some properties for that...

`make-obsolete-variable'?  I don't know if this is suitable here.

> I just added the support to spam.el and spam-report.el.  I assume
> that registering as spam is the same as unregistering as ham, and
> vice versa; if that's not the case let me know and I'll correct the
> backend registration.  Please test the reporting, if you have a
> chance.

Would you mind the following change?  I don't think we changing the
syntax of the (previously) interactive function `spam-report-gmane' is
a good idea.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
--- spam-report.el	21 Sep 2005 18:39:41 +0200	7.23
+++ spam-report.el	21 Sep 2005 18:42:59 +0200	
@@ -119,15 +119,17 @@
   "Report ARTICLES as not-spam (unregister) through Gmane."
   (interactive (gnus-summary-work-articles current-prefix-arg))
   (dolist (article articles)
-    (spam-report-gmane t article)))
+    (spam-report-gmane-internal t article)))
 
 (defun spam-report-gmane-spam (&rest articles)
   "Report ARTICLES as spam through Gmane."
   (interactive (gnus-summary-work-articles current-prefix-arg))
   (dolist (article articles)
-    (spam-report-gmane nil article)))
+    (spam-report-gmane-internal nil article)))
 
-(defun spam-report-gmane (unspam article)
+(defalias 'spam-report-gmane 'spam-report-gmane-spam)
+
+(defun spam-report-gmane-internal (unspam article)
   "Report ARTICLE as spam or not-spam through Gmane, depending on UNSPAM."
   (when (and gnus-newsgroup-name
 	     (or (null spam-report-gmane-regex)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: spam.el/spam-report.el: Gmane spam reporting broken in No Gnus

[Reiner Steib]

On Wed, Sep 21 2005, Reiner Steib wrote:

> Would you mind the following change?  I don't think we changing the
> syntax of the (previously) interactive function `spam-report-gmane' is
> a good idea.

I noticed that spam-report-gmane-* should be autoloaded.  And the
"unspam" feature should look at "X-Report-Unspam".  I renamed
`spam-report-gmane-unspam' to `spam-report-gmane-ham' because
everywhere else in `spam{,-report}.el' we use "ham".

Please let me know if you think something is wrong with these changes.

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: spam.el/spam-report.el: Gmane spam reporting broken in No Gnus

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc wrote:

On Wed, Sep 21 2005, Reiner Steib wrote:
> 
>> Would you mind the following change?  I don't think we changing the
>> syntax of the (previously) interactive function `spam-report-gmane' is
>> a good idea.
> 
> I noticed that spam-report-gmane-* should be autoloaded.  And the
> "unspam" feature should look at "X-Report-Unspam".  I renamed
> `spam-report-gmane-unspam' to `spam-report-gmane-ham' because
> everywhere else in `spam{,-report}.el' we use "ham".
> 
> Please let me know if you think something is wrong with these changes.

No problems.  I appreciate all your help with the Gmane functionality
and others.  I've been really busy lately :)

Ted